THE TABLET

A Weekly Newspaper and Review.

Dum VOBISGRATULAMUR, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMÜS UT IN INCCEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEATIS.

From the B r ie f o f H is Holiness to T he Tablet, ’J une 4, 1870

Vol. 44. No. 1808. London, December 5, 1874.

pricesa by post¡m .

[R egistered a t th e G eneral P ost O ffice as a N ewspaper.

C hronicle of th e W e ek :—

Page

Lord Acton and S. Pius V .—Lord Acton's “ Proofs.”— Faith arid Argument.—Opening of the French Assembly. — The Position in France.—Disruption of the French Protestant Sect.—The Carlisls.— More Persecution.— Prussia the Hot-bed of Rationalism.— Père Hyacinthe's Apologist. — “ Concerning my Marriage.”—Dr. Coienso at Oxford.—Rubrical Revision. — Fruitless Missions. — Chili.— Degeneracy of the Stage. —Dr. Kenealy .. .. ., 705 ¡Leaders :

Catholic Allegiance .. .. .. 709 English Opinion on the German

Reptile Press .. .. .. 709

CONTENTS

L eaders (continued) :

Page

Lord Emly on the Irish Question 709 Opening of the Italian Parliament and Speech of the King.. .. 711 The Reform of Church Music .. 712 O ur P rotestant C ontemporaries :

The Deposing Power .. .. 713 R eview s :

History of the Church of Corea .. 715 The Vatican Decrees and Catholic

Allegiance .. .. .. .. 7x7 Lord Robert Montagu on Mr.

Gladstone .. .. .. .. 717 Reply to the Bishop of Ripon’s

Attack on the Catholic Church 718 S hort N otices :

Christmas Numbers of the Maga­

zines.. .. .. .. .. 718

C orrespondence:

The Temporal Limited by the

Spiritual Power .. .. .. 718 Lord Acton’s Charge against

Fenelon .. .. .. .. 718 Testimony of Mr. Gladstone to the Validity of the Vatican Council and its Decrees.. .. 719 The Deposing Power of the Pope 719 An Historical Parallel .. .. 719 The New Infallibility Men .. 719 Ecclesiastical Music .. .. 719 An Explanation .. .. .. 719 R ome :— Letter from our own Cor­

respondent .. .. .. 721 R ecord of G erman P ersecution :

Dr. Windhorst _on Prussian

Liberty and'Justice .. .. 722 Liberty of the Press .. .. 722

The Secret Apostolic Delegate of

Page

Posen- .. .. .. .. 722 Fresh Condemnation of the Bishop of Paderborn .. .. .. 722 Dr. Falck and the ‘ *Old-Ca­

tholics ” .. .. .. .. 722 The Cry is Still ‘ They Fine ’ ” .. 723 Mr. G ladstone’s E xpostulation 723 D iocesan N e w s :—Westminster.. 726

Southwark .. .. .. .. 727 Beverley .. .. .. .. 727 Birmingham .. .. .. .. 727 Clifton .. . . .. .. .. 727 Newport and Menevia .. .. 727 P l y m o u t h .................................... 728 I reland.. .. .. .. . . 728 Foreign N ews.— Prussia .. .. 728 General N ews . . . . . . 729

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

LORD ACTON AND S. PIUS V. T

H E lim its at our disposal alone prevented us, last week, from noticing Lord A c to n ’s secondary evidence against St.

P iu s V . , that, namely, deduced from the conduct and writings o f the Pontiff. In our view, indeed, that evidence, like the direct evidence, fails precisely at the essential point, and only proves to what straits the accuser is driven in order to make out his charge. Pius V . , argues Lord A c ton , was lik e ly to commission an assassin to murder Queen Elizabeth, because he had presided over the Inquisition in the years o f its greatest activity. T h a t is to say, because he was the ch ie f judge o f an ancient legal court, which, however severe its sentences might sometimes be, still was accustom ed to try each individual case with careful discrim ination, therefore it was probable that he would do that which no law authorized. I t is as much as to contend that, because that great judge Lord Mansfield was in the habit, during his long career, o f sentencing men to death for sheep-stealing and other com paratively trifling offences, therefore he was dead to humanity, and exactly the man to instigate one o f the ushers o f his court to k ill a notorious thief. Still further to support his case, Lord A c ton quotes four isolated sentences from St. Pius, but not one o f these does more than urge the established authorities to put the law s— existing, be it remembered, from tim e immemorial— v igorously and unflinchingly in force, for the defence o f life and property. T h e re is not, among the four, one sentence justifying private vengeance ; and so conscious (it would seem at least) is Lord A c ton , or his authority, o f this fatal flaw in the “ proofs,” that he introduces at this point the opinion o f some very obscure theologian— that “ a notorious heretic, “ i f the judges neglected their duty, might be slain by a “ private p e rson ”— an opinion which in no way bound St. Pius, but which serves well enough to bring odium upon him. W e submit, however, that a case which must be eked out by an importation lik e this must be a very weak one.

R everting now to the direct evidence bear-

lord acton s [ng on Lord A c to n ’s charge against St. Pius, we i k o • . woui,j invite attention to a few facts which will, we believe, assist those who wish to form an impartial judgm ent, i . I t jn ay dispel some prejudice i f we state that R id o lfi was not (as some m ight suppose) a Roman prelate, or even a lay member o f the Pontifical Court j neither had he been sent expressly to England. H e was a banker long resident in London ; and he acted as “ secret agent ” o f the Pope, beeause the Pope could not communicate w ith his English flock, nor they with him, except through a secret agent. 2. I t may be well doubted that R id o lfi “ set on foot ”

New Series. Vol. X II. No. 317.

the great conspiracy o f 1570. T h e real author was Lesley, B ishop o f Ross, the Queen o f Scotland’s agent in London, with whom, however, R idolfi and the Spanish Ambassador Espes no doubt readily jo in ed. 3. T h e objects o f this conspiracy were (as we have before rem inded our readers) the liberation o f the Scottish Queen, the overthrow o f I E lizabeth’s Governm ent, the elevation o f M ary to the throne | o f England, with the D uke o f N o rfo lk as her C o n so r t ; and,

lastly, the re-establishm ent o f the Catholic religion in these | kingdoms. T o achieve these great objects money and a Spanish army were required, and to obtain these the inj fluence o f the Pope must be brought to bear upon the K in g of Spain. H ence R id o lfi’s mission to R om e and Madrid, with letters purporting to com e from M ary and the Duke, urgently begging for the necessary aid. 4. I t is certain that before R idolfi left England some Catholics there were talking vaguely o f k illin g the Queen during her autumnal progresses. H e , there can be no doubt, knew o f this p r o je c t ; but, as shall presently be shown, it was not his own scheme. T h e conspirators must have been very few in number, for the Governm ent never discovered them ; and to talk o f them as “ the C atholics o f England ’’ proves R id o lfi’s capacity for falsehood. 5. There is not a single phrase or word in the P ope’s letter recommending R id o lfi to Philip I I . , which may not most naturally and ju s tly refer to the D uke o f N o r fo lk ’s proposed a c t io n ; whereas it is most unnatural to suppose that, a ltogether passing over that plan which absolutely demanded Philip ’s co-operation, the Pontiff should have urged upon his attention a p lo t which could have been carried out by “ the English Catholics ” without his help, at any moment, i f they were in earnest about it. A n d here we must acknowledge an error, which a misprint (as we suppose) in one o f Dr. L ingard’s notes led us in to last week. A reference to Gonzales showed that it was June, and not July, 15 7 1 , when Philip expressed his suspicion that R idolfi was an agent of E l izab e th ; and this fact invalidates our argument founded on the erroneous date. 6. T h e Spanish Council o f State consisted o f five members, one o f whom was the Inquisitor-General. W e remark that M. M ignet has not been able to extract anything w icked or even suspicious out o f his opinion. Further, we must point out that— even assuming the D u k e o f Feria’s and Dr. V e la sco ’s opinions to be accurately represented, o f which we cannot but feel some doubt— still they evidently refer to R id o lfi’s wonderful story about “ the Catholics o f “ England,” and are utterly worthless as evidence against St. Pius V . 7. Lord A c ton says :— “ T h e man who finally under“ took to do the deed was C iappin V ite lli.” N ow C iappin V itelli was not (as m ight be inferred) some obscure Italian bravo, but the Marquis V itelli, a distinguished officer, who had been special Envoy to England, and whose face was w e ll